Friday, February 24, 2006

Back Me Up

Some people agreed with me.

| Tags || |


  1. I'm semi-shocked that the Index published his letter in the first place. I mean, there are certainly lots of God-squadders on campus, but the editors had to realize that they'd be pissing off a pretty vocal group of queer supporters on campus. Maybe that was the idea, who knows.

  2. I was really glad to see that others wrote responses similar to your's. I was especially impressed with Mr. Scott's reply.

  3. again, that last post was me. -mags

  4. This is a duplicate post but I have my reasons...

    Dearest Stellar and I do mean dearest, as you are very dear to me.

    The tone of your reply to my comment on "What Dogs Hump" resonated with anger, condescension and presumption. It appears you that want to stereotype me, and have categorized, labeled and shelved me in a place you have for 52 year old, mid-western, heterosexual mothers. It sounds like you feel you have no control over your life and are a victim of the "forces behind, to and of life". In your defense, I guess if I felt so out of control I would be angry and frustrated also.

    Yes, to all of your questions. I make a cognitive and emotional choice when I enter into any relationship. I think you misinterpret my intent here. It seems you want to insert a motive in my comment where there is none. You want to lace this issue with majority or minority, good or bad, normal or alternative values. Simply put, homosexuality is what it exists because people can choose a lifestyle that works for them. Animals have limited cognitive abilities and don’t make such sophisticated choices. Humans can make is our God given right. We started making choices in the 'Garden of Eden' if you will, and every choice we make impacts us. When people start making choices that are outside of tribal rules then there are negative consequences. That's how the rules and values within a society change. They change with those who dare to stand up for their choices. Choice is the greatest gift given us as humans. That was my point to my post.

    Now, I would be sorely remiss if I didn't address your following statement: "Did you wake up one morning and decide, "you know what? I think I'll have some penis today"? The idea that we have control over the way in which we experience love is madness."

    If having some “penis” is the furthest you can experience love in a heterosexual relationship then I would suspect you are not equipped emotionally at this juncture to understand the essence of a homosexual relationship either.

    Over and out,
    Tuna Hell

  5. Tunahell, despite Stellar's farcical question, I'm sure she realizes that there is more to sexuality that desiring a penis or a vagina. (Speaking of "condescention and presumption," you best check yo'self befo'e you wreck yo'self.) The point she was trying to make is that no one consciously decides to be gay, just as no one consciously makes a decision to be straight.

    The misunderstaning here seems to stem from your, Tunahell, examination of the societal implications of homosexuality and Stellar's physical/psychological position on homosexuality.

    And I'll state it again: The assertion that humans are so far advanced above any other species ("Animals have limited cognitive abilities and don’t make such sophisticated choices. Humans can make is our God given right.") that we must have advanced sexuality as well is an exaggeration. As humans we are subject and do submit to the same sexual desires as many other animals, because humans are animals.

  6. "As humans we are subject and do submit to the same sexual desires as many other animals, because humans are animals."

    Well, here's some food for thought...why don't you come home and have sex with me? Dogs have sex with their parents, most animals use no disgretion here. Now, examine your answer...would your answer come forth out of a be a state of being (well I was born not wanting to have sex with my mother) or a choice exercised by a preference (I'd prefer not to have sex with my mother) and if its the latter then think where did that preference come from...or perhaps you'll just submit to your primal sexual desires and come home this afternoon for a little maternal nooky? Now before you run off wailing about how disgusting this is...think about's a good arguement for discussion.

  7. One more question. Why is it not sufficient for one to say, "I choose to be homosexual or I choose to be heterosexual?" There appears to be so much freedom exercised in those statements. No biological bondage...

    Could it be that when this group of people began to stand up for their rights that they chose the tactic of making it a biological circumstance to strengthen their platform? It was at this jucture that the group as a whole started winning sympathizers away of a societal value. A means toward an end. I mean it's hard to condemn a person because they were born a certain way.

    Is everyone out there absolutely certain that given another set of circumstances (and I don't mean you move to another city and get a new job) they might not choose what I'll call a 'non-traditional' relationship? I am not insisting that I be right...I'm just asking you to dig deep, and be honest in this examination.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  9. "Technically, using another species' sexual habits really isn't a very realistic or accurate comparison to human sexual practices. Humans are much more complex beings, with emotions and mind."

    Prop to Magster for the previous statements. Morality aside, homosexuality aside, name-calling aside: We are more than mere animals. We are animals, yes. But we are also so much more. It is true that we are subordinate to the biological urges of our physical, animal bodies, but it is every bit as true that we are also subordinate to our minds and our hearts. Our minds have produced technologies that have advanced our species beyond what any other on our planet can duplicate. Many use tools, and even language, but none have mastered agriculture, urbanification, mass transportation, mass communication, or even departure from our planet. And these are only accomplishments of the mind. Driving many of these are the deeper, unseen potentialities of the human heart. Love, loyalty, service; hatred, bigotry, genocide: these are just a few examples of the human heart in action. Animals exist in none of these emotional realms. The most intense affection of a dog, or the most aggressive anger of a bull bear but shadowy consequences in comparison to the far-reaching effects of human emotional activity. "We are more than carbon and chemicals," as Dustin Kenstrue would scream.

    As mindful, soulful creatures, we have the luxury of living lives filled with activities other than acquiring food and perpetuating the species. We not only have the time to amuse ourselves with hobbies, we have the time to muse the worlds in and beyond our own immediate existence. Humans alone have artists, philosophers, and prophets. I am not even speaking of the Divine, but merely the unexaggerated difference between homo sapiens and every other animal on the planet. Putting value judgement aside, we are dominant. We have an energy economy that simply cannot be compared with that of other animals, partly because it includes so many types of animals in ways they cannot include each other. In addition, we live separate from them in our and emotional and spiritual world. We are alone; even our dearest pets cannot commune with us the way we commune with each other.

    So whether or not your Orangutan, Jill, is a lesbian or your neighbor wants to hump your leg, our deep ancestors stared at the moon for millenia and our grandfathers dreamed of it. Humanity has tread lunar soil, and we have so much further yet to go. These are but glimpses of our species' unconscious quest to be who we are and so much more. And that is what it is to be hyper-animal: human.

  10. Now that's putting pen to paper with shear eloquence. I drink a toast to your writing mastery.

  11. When it comes to same-sex attraction does biology play a part?

    "There isn't any slam dunk biological theory," says University of Western Ontario professor Guy Grenier.

    The Kinsey Scale
    "Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats."

    "There isn't sort of a line when you get to pass and we say, `Okay you get to be homosexual now.'"

    Grenier believes any attempt to define or restrict sexuality, "isn't consistent with the human condition."

    So what if you play for both teams so-to-speak, on the Kinsey scale? "Thinking there is one type of homosexuality is about as much of a mistake as thinking there is one type of heterosexuality," Grenier says.
    The reason why such sexual fluidity exists isn't clear. "Homosexuality represents that we find lots of things attractive," he says.
    So is the world open to these ideas? "I think if we lived in a homophobic society before we might be evolving into a homonegative society," Grenier says. Hate against homosexuals is still there, just less "rabid."

    "We're not seeing more homosexuality. We're not seeing more experimentation," he adds. "We have a greater appreciation that it's out there."
    Experimenting often happens in the early 20s - the first time we get out of the house. "If you're going to experiment, university is an excellent place," says Jacqueline Stein, a media, information and technoculture student at Western. "I've never experimented," the 20-year-old says, "But I've thought about it before. It was a fleeting thought," explaining her crush was more about admiration than attraction.

    Whether a tendency to experiment with same-sex scenarios is a product of biology or environment isn't clear either.

    Author Emily Matheu

  12. Tunahell, I don't think anyone posting on this site ever asserted that homosexuality had a biological. I think the only assertion that was made was that it was not a conscious decision.

    This is not to say that some sexual choices can be made consciously. I could choose to have sex with someone I'm not attracted to (you, in your example). But I don't want to.

    The truth is that sex is used for many different reasons in the human AND in the animal world (since we seem so keen on separating the two). Sex can be used to gain favor, advance in social status, bargain for other needs, procreate, or simply just for fun. Some animals do have sex with their mothers, sisters, brothers, etc. Some people also have sex with their immediate family as well. But human culture calls these people "mentally ill" because it's a rule that we've thought up that you can't have sex with your family. Animal societies have these rules to: you can't have sex with the alpha without permission, you can't have sex with the alpha's mates, etc. This doesn't make that animal "wrong" or "sinful" it just means he's operationg outside of the society's rules.

  13. This is tremendous stuff!

    These posts are not about what Tuna Hell does or doesn’t believe. They are about the marvelous thought processes of our individual minds, as Wrangler so eloquently pointed out.

    Look at all the wonderful contributions made here because of McBastard’s initial post. Each and every post submitted challenged us to consider or reconsider ourselves.

    Sometimes, we tend to stay in a safe-mode and not venture outside our own code of beliefs nor do we have such opportunity to examine viewpoints of those outside our social circle so readily.

    These posts motivated the contributors to voice their opinions. Maybe it was a validation for some, maybe it caused others new self-discovery and at the very least, it allowed the writers to evaluate the tactics they chose in delivering those opinions.

    Yes, this was valuable experience to all involved.

    Good blogging!

    Over and out,


Circa Now